CYRIAC JOSEPH, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed against the judgment dated 7. 6. 2005 passed in W. P. No. 5163/01. The appellant is the respondent in the writ petition. The respondent herein is the petitioner in the writ petition. ( 2 ) THE respondent's name was sponsored by the Bellary Employment Exchange for appointment to the post of Helper-B in the K. S. R. T. C. , Bellary Division. Hence the 2nd respondent (Divisional controller, Bellary Division) forwarded an application to the respondent herein along with his letter dated 28. 3. 1996 and informed that he may apply for the said post within a month. The respondent was also informed that he would have to appear before the recruitment authority on 6. 11. 1996 with the completely filled up application and the documents mentioned in the letter dated 28. 3. 1996. The documents mentioned in the letter dated 28. 3. 1996 included among others, an application completely filled up in all respects and ITI/itc (NAC/ntc) marks cards wherein it should have been mentioned that the candidates have passed in all papers. According to the respondent, he submitted the completely filled up application along with the documents and appeared for the interview on 6. 11. 1996. However, he was not selected. Therefore, he filed W. P. No. 8696/97 praying for a direction to appoint him as Helper-B in the services of the corporation. He also prayed for a declaration that the appointment of one Thimma Reddy (4th respondent) was illegal. The contention in the said writ petition was that the petitioner therein had secured 68. 5% marks whereas the 4th respondent had secured only 67. 38% and therefore, the petitioner should have been preferred for appointment. To substantiate the claim of the petitioner that he had scored 68. 15%, he had produced Annexures-B, C and D, marks cards in respect of ITI and Annexure-F, marks card in respect of NAC. The respondent Corporation did not file any objection in the writ petition. The learned Counsel for the Corporation stated that in the event of the petitioner securing higher marks than the 4th respondent, his case could be considered subject to verification. Hence the writ petition was disposed of by the learned single judge on 22. 3. 2000 directing the respondent Corporation to verify the marks obtained by the petitioner and also marks obtained by the 4th respondent. Hence the writ petition was disposed of by the learned single judge on 22. 3. 2000 directing the respondent Corporation to verify the marks obtained by the petitioner and also marks obtained by the 4th respondent. It was also directed that after varification, if the respondent Corporation found that the petitioner had factually obtained 68. 15% marks, the Corporation should consider the case of the petitioner and appoint him to the post of Helper-B. in the order dated 8. 11. 2000, the respondent has stated that along with his application, the petitioner had enclosed NTC and NAC marks cards, but the NTC marks cards shoved that he had scored 28 marks in subject No. 3 and against subject Nos. 1, 2 and 4, it was written 'ex'. Since the marks in subject Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were not shown, in the marks card, the corporation treated the marks -card as incomplete. It is also stated in the order dated 8. 11. 2000 that the Scrutiny Committee had recorded the following remark on 6. 11. 1996: ntc marks card incomplete. Hence taken only NAC into consideration it is also stated that on an examination of NAC marks card, the petitioner had scored 412 marks out of 650 and the. percentage worked out to 63,38%. It is also stated that the petitioner had not enclosed the necessary NTC marks card to calculate the percentage of his marks as 68. 15. Since the NTC marks card was incomplete and since the petitioner secured only 63. 38% as per the nac marks card and since the 4th respondent had secured 67. 38% marks, the Corporation informed the petitioner that he cannot be considered for appointment as Helper-B. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by Annexure-P order, the respondent filed the writ petition. In the present writ petition, the respondent Corporation filed statement of objection supporting and defending the stand taken in Annexure-P. After considering the rival contentions, the learned single Judge directed the Corporation to take into consideration Annexures-B, C and D for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioner and pass orders in accordance with law. In the present writ petition, the respondent Corporation filed statement of objection supporting and defending the stand taken in Annexure-P. After considering the rival contentions, the learned single Judge directed the Corporation to take into consideration Annexures-B, C and D for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioner and pass orders in accordance with law. while giving such direction to the Corporation, the learned single Judge observed that even though the writ petitioner had produced Annexures-B, C and D in the earlier writ petition, the Corporation had not taken the stand in the said writ petition that NTC marks card of the petitioner was incomplete. The learned single Judge has sat aside Annexure-P and remanded the matter far reconsideration. Thereupon, the Corporation has filed the present appeal. ( 4 ) IT is not disputed that the Corporation has not taken into account the marks obtained by the petitioner in NTC on the ground that the marks sheet was incomplete. It is also not disputed that if the marks shown in Annexures-B, C and D are taken into account, the petitioner will secure 68. 15%. The reason for not taking NTC marks into consideration is that Annexures-B, C and D were not produced at the time of submitting the application. The contention of the petitioner is that ha had produced Annexures-B, C and D also along with the application. Therefore essentially the dispute is whether the petitioner had in fact produced Annexures-B, C and D along with the application submitted by him before the corporation. Apart from Annexure-L, acknowledgement dated 6. 11. 1996, the petitioner has no document to prove that Annexures-B, C and D were produced along with the application, Annexure-L only refers to ITI/nac passed certificate. The corporation also does not dispute that the petitioner had submitted Annexure-D which shows that he had obtained 28 marks in subject No. 3 and for subject Nos. 1, 2 and 4, it was written 'ex'. According to the Corporation, Annexures- B and C were not produced and annexure-L cannot prove that Annexures-B and C were produced along with the application. In support of the contention of the Corporation that ITI certificate produced by the petitioner was incomplete, the Corporation produced a photocopy of the scrutiny sheet wherein it was recorded on 6. 11. 1996 as follows: NTC marks card incomplete. In support of the contention of the Corporation that ITI certificate produced by the petitioner was incomplete, the Corporation produced a photocopy of the scrutiny sheet wherein it was recorded on 6. 11. 1996 as follows: NTC marks card incomplete. Hence taken only NAC into consideration the same noting is quoted in Annexure-P order. A photocopy of the relevant page of the scrutiny sheet was produced along with the statement of objections filed by the corporation in the writ petition, in the circumstances ordinarily, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the Corporation that the petitioner had not produced Annexures-B and C along with the application and that in the absence of marks of subject Nos. 1, 2 and 4, the Corporation had to treat NTC marks of the petitioner as incomplete. However, the learned single Judge has pointed out that if the Corporation had any dispute about the production of Annexures-B and C along with the application, the Corporation could have taken such objection in the earlier writ petition. Having failed to do so, the Corporation cannot take the stand that they had not been produced along with the application. It is the above circumstance that persuaded the learned single Judge to direct the corporation to take into account Annexures-B, C and D and to reconsider the matter. ( 5 ) IT is true that there is some weakness in the stand of the Corporation on account of their failure to file objection in the earlier writ petition and to specifically plead that Annexures-B and C had not been produced along with the application. At the same time, it has to be noted that in W. P. No. 8696/97, apart from a general statement that the petitioner had appeared on 6. 11. 1996 and submitted the application as required and his application was accepted, there was no specific averment that Annexures-B and C also were produced along with the application. that was stated in the writ petition was that it was clear that the petitioner had submitted all the required documents and his application was in order. 11. 1996 and submitted the application as required and his application was accepted, there was no specific averment that Annexures-B and C also were produced along with the application. that was stated in the writ petition was that it was clear that the petitioner had submitted all the required documents and his application was in order. It would appear that the counsel for the corporation took a very fair stand and submitted before the court that in the event of the petitioner securing higher marks than the 4th respondent, his case could be considered subject to verification, In other words, the counsel for the corporation reserved the right to verify the marks. ( 6 ) THUS from the totality of circumstances, it cannot be said that the corporation had admitted that the petitioner had produced Annexures-B and C along with his application. If as a matter of fact, the petitioner had not submitted Annexures-B and C, the respondent cannot be found fault with for not taking into account NTC marks as the petitioner's NTC was incomplete. In that event, the 4th respondent would get higher marks than the petitioner and the appointment of the 4th respondent cannot be questioned by the petitioner. ( 7 ) FROM the materials placed on record, it is not possible for the court to come to a definite conclusion that the petitioner had in fact produced Annexures-B and C along with his application. On the other hand, the facts and circumstances and Annexure-L, acknowledgement would indicate that the petitioner had produced only Annexure-D, certificate. The statement of the respondent that Annexures-B and C had not been produced cannot be ignored or rejected in view of the contemporaneous document, that is. scrutiny sheet which contains a noting that NTC marks card of the petitioner was incomplete and hence only NAC marks were taken into consideration. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the respondent Corporation did not commit any illegality in appointing the 4th respondent and not appointing the petitioner. ( 8 ) THE impugned selection took place in the year 1996. We do not find any valid justification for compelling the Corporation to appoint the petitioner at this time, taking into consideration annexures-B and C which according to the appellant, were not produced along with the application. ( 8 ) THE impugned selection took place in the year 1996. We do not find any valid justification for compelling the Corporation to appoint the petitioner at this time, taking into consideration annexures-B and C which according to the appellant, were not produced along with the application. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had actually produced annexures-B and C along with the application, but they were removed by the Corporation authorities to help the 4th respondent. In the light of the materials available in this case, we have no valid reason to suspect that the respondent Corporation would have resorted to such a mischief to deny appointment to the petitioner. Merely because the petitioner has made such allegation, this Court will not be justified in assuming that the said allegation is true. The mere fact that the Corporation did not file statement of objection in the earlier writ petition and did not dispute production of Annexures-B and C cannot lead to an inference that the Corporation had removed the documents to deny appointment to the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that even assuming that Annexures-B and C were not produced along with the application, it was only a minor procedural irregularity and he could have been given an opportunity to produce further documents. But in the selection or appointment of candidates, the criteria followed are, marks obtained by the candidate and that is why the candidates are required to produce completely filled up application along with all the necessary documents. It was incumbent on the petitioner to produce all the certificates which would have helped the selection authority to assess the relative merit of the petition. Failure or omission to produce necessary certificates which have a bearing on the criterion for selection is not a mere procedural irregularity. It is a fatal defect or mistake in the submission of the application. If the Corporation is expected to go on requesting candidates to rectify such defects by requiring them to produce further certificates, it could be an endless process which will delay the selection and appointment and hence not practicable. It is a fatal defect or mistake in the submission of the application. If the Corporation is expected to go on requesting candidates to rectify such defects by requiring them to produce further certificates, it could be an endless process which will delay the selection and appointment and hence not practicable. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the learned single Judge erred in quashing Annexure-P order and directing Corporation to reconsider the case of the petitioner taking into account Annexures B, C and D. Hence the impugned order of the learned single judge is set aside. Appeal stands allowed.